Discover contacts (not in this build)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical behavior: discovery is unimplemented and will return nothing useful. It is honest about the no-op nature, though it does not say what the call returns or whether the required query matters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with 'Cut-list stub' so the agent grasps the situation immediately. No filler; every clause conveys necessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter stub with no output schema or annotations, the description supplies the one fact that matters: it will not work. The remaining gap is a concrete pointer to the alternative workflow, which would make it fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself states the query is 'Ignored. Kept so the tool has a stable shape.' The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema already documents, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool's real purpose: it is a 'cut-list stub' that 'will not find, suggest or look up anyone.' This is a specific and honest statement of scope that distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like place_call, approve_contact, and run_interview, though the verb+resource framing is inverted (it says what it does NOT do).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Explains what to do instead' implies the tool is used as a redirect mechanism, giving implied usage. However, no alternative tool or action is named, so the agent is left to infer the actual path forward on its own.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.